AIG: The Absurdity of Secular Science

It’s long. It’s boring. Every sentence is catastrophically wrong. You could teach an entire semester-long course using this as your text, with the course title being: “A Classic Case of Creationism.”

We’re taking about this … this thing that just appeared at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. It’s titled Is Science Secular?

It was written by Bodie Hodge, who has a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Southern Illinois University. Instead of pursuing an engineering career, he’s a speaker, writer, and researcher for AIG. Not only that, but Bodie is ol’ Hambo’s son-in-law.

Bodie has a genuine talent for this kind of work. The last time we wrote about one of his AIG essays was AIG: Darwin = Hitler, Stalin, Abortion, etc.. We introduced it as “the ultimate creationist witches brew — deep, thick, and unbearably foul-smelling.” In our final paragraph we said it was “the biggest ark-load of creationist excrement we’ve ever seen in one post.”

Bodie’s new essay continues that tradition. It’s very long. Every paragraph is a classic, so you’ll need to read it all to get the full impact. Here are a few choice excerpts, with bold font added by us:

A friend of the ministry [presumably the AIG ministry] was recently challenged by the comment that science can only be done through a purely secular evolutionary framework. We have decided to publish a response for the sake of teaching. Such statements are blatantly absurd and are a type of arbitrary fallacy called an “ignorant conjecture.” In other words, these people simply do not know the past, nor are they familiar with what science really is.

Fortunately, Bodie knows the past, and he knows what science “really is.” He says:

If science is a strictly secular endeavor without any need for a biblical worldview, then why were most fields of science developed by Bible-believing Christians? For example, consider Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei …

Furthermore, science comes out of a Christian worldview. Only the God described in the Bible can account for a logical and orderly universe. God upholds the universe in a particular way, such that we can study it by observational and repeatable experimentation [irrelevant scripture reference]. Because God upholds the universe in a consistent manner, we have a valid reason to expect that we can study the world we live in and describe the laws that God uses to sustain the universe [another irrelevant scripture reference].

Yes — were it not for God’s logical, orderly, and consistent universe, we couldn’t do science, because all kinds of impossible and incomprehensible things like — cough, cough — miracles would be happening. Bodie continues:

When non-Christians do real science by observable and repeatable experimentation, they are actually assuming a biblical worldview, even if they do not realize it. The U.S. will lose out in “science” when its education system limits science in the classroom exclusively to the religion of secular humanism.

We must teach creationism in our schools. It’s the only way to excel in science. Let’s read on:

The battle is between the religion of secular humanism (with its variant forms like agnosticism, atheism, and the like), which is usually called secularism or humanism for short, and Christianity.

[…]

Humanism has astronomical evolution (big bang), geological evolution (millions of years of slow gradual changes), chemical evolution (life came from non-life) and biological evolution (original, single-celled life evolved into all life forms we have today over billions of years) in its view of origins. In other words, evolution (as a whole) is a subset of the dogma of the religion of humanism in the same way as biblical creation (as a whole, with six-day Creation, the Fall, global Flood, and the Tower of Babel) is a subset of the dogma of Christianity. It is a battle over two different religions.

Amazing, huh? Another excerpt:

There is a misconception that this evolutionary subset of humanism is science. Science means knowledge and scientific methodology that is based on the scientific method (observable and repeatable experimentation). However, evolution (whether chemical, biological, astronomical, or geological) is far from scientific. Consider the following facts:

1. No one has been able to observe or repeat the making of life from non-life (matter giving rise to life or chemical evolution).

2. No one has been able to observe or repeat the changing of a single-celled life-form like an amoeba into a cow or goat over billions of years (biological evolution).

3. No one has been able to observe or repeat the big bang (astronomical evolution).

4. No one has observed millions of years of time progressing in geological layers (geological evolution).

You can’t argue with that, dear reader. Were you there? Here’s more

One of the key components of humanism is naturalism. Basically, it assumes a priori there is nothing supernatural and no God. In other words, nature (i.e., matter) is all that exists in their religion (only the physical world).

[…]

Logic, truth, integrity, concepts, thought, God, etc., are not material and have no mass; so those holding to naturalism as a worldview must reject logic, truth, and all immaterial concepts if they wish to be consistent since these are not material or physical parts of nature.

Okay, that’s enough. Click over there and read the whole thing if you like. All we can say is that ol’ Hambo must be very pleased that his daughter married Bodie. She made the right choice.

16 responses to “AIG: The Absurdity of Secular Science”

Clearly AIG is “preaching to the choir” and to atheists who have a low amusement level. This drivel cannot begin to convince anyone of their viewpoint, so they are, as we say, “Just keeping their hand in.” (Keeps the rubes donations flowing, know what I mean?)

I would love to hear from a secular person who just happened upon the AIG website and “OMG, I was instantly converted to their viewpoint!” I suspect she would have a fairy riding shotgun with her on her unicorn.

These idiots always use the “science hasn’t done X, therefore it is impossible” argument and then conclude “goddidit”. There are many things that we didn’t know in the past but know now. These people should listen to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s talk on “I don’t know”. As he explains, not knowing something doesn’t imply a supernatural explanation. I think the fundamentalists are just frightened – they fear science!

“Consider the following facts:”
@1: Just wait a few decades. But no way Bodie will admit he was wrong.
@2, 3 and 4: And Bodie is too stupid to find out how come?
Fortunately I have a pretty low amusement level.

I call attention once again to the 1852 (!) essay by Spencer, “The Development Hypothesis” which is in wikisource.org.

There is still no description of what sort of thing goes on, whether one calls it creation, or design, or “anything-so-long-as-it-isn’t-evolution”. What happens so that the world of life on Earth turns out with its variation that is undeniably obvious?

Science means knowledge and scientific methodology that is based on the scientific method (observable and repeatable experimentation).

There went Intelligent Design. Definitely not a science, per AiG.

I suppose AiG believes the pre-Christian Greek philosopher-scientists were using a biblical worldview, never mind that the bible did not yet exist. What writings that might have existed were, ah, still evolving.

I may have mentioned this before. A small child visiting us looked at a candlestick and said (approximately, in German), “Before that green candle, you had a red one.” I did not reply, “Were you there?”

God created everything, which includes science, therefor science must be religious. But everything science has found that contradicts AIG’s version of things ISNT religious, but dirty dirty secular humanism lies. God set us up, what a tricky guy.

Only the God described in the Bible can account for a logical and orderly universe. God upholds the universe in a particular way, such that we can study it by observational and repeatable experimentation…

Hold it right there, Hodges! That’s “uniformitarianism” you’re espousing — the position, vehemently denied by Creationists, that the natural laws of the universe are consistent and can be used as evidence for drawing scientific conclusions. Creationists tell us that none of the dozens of dating methods used by secular scientists are reliable, because the universe behaved in a haphazard and unpredictable manner in the unobservable past.

AiG make an artificial distinction and christen what you mention ‘uniformity’ (because reality forces them to reject all valid conclusions that are based upon uniformitarianism since they refute Genesis literalism). (Check their website.)

“In the secular view, where all matter originated by chance from nothing, there is no ultimate cause or reason for anything that happens, and explanations are constantly changing, so there is no basis for science.”

“On what basis should we expect a universe that came from nothing and for no reason to act in a predictable and consistent manner?”

What nonsense YECs come out with. Matter, complex life, or the laws of physics (and mathematics) don’t require a supernatural creator (let alone regarding Genesis as infallible history written by the Christian God). The universe is agnostic about God.

Matter, complex life, or the laws of physics (and mathematics) don’t require a supernatural creator
Not only not necessary, but also not sufficient.
What is there about God, Intelligent Designers, or The Supernatural that accounts for the way things are, rather than some other possibility?